Overview
Title
To establish the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers Council, Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers, and Artificial Intelligence Governance Boards, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to set up a group of special officers in the government called Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers to make sure computers and robots are used safely and properly. These officers will work together with plans to help the government use technology better, and the bill will last for 10 years.
Summary AI
S. 2293 aims to create a council called the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers Council and to appoint Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers in various U.S. government agencies. These officers will be responsible for overseeing and coordinating the use of artificial intelligence in the government, ensuring it's used safely, ethically, and effectively. The bill also mandates the formation of Artificial Intelligence Governance Boards within agencies to manage AI-related issues and establish strategies for AI development and use. Additionally, the act will expire 10 years from its enactment.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, titled the "AI Leadership To Enable Accountable Deployment Act (AI LEAD Act)," seeks to establish new frameworks and roles for overseeing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) within the federal government. The bill introduces the creation of a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers Council, along with the appointment of Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers (CAIOs) in various federal agencies. Additionally, each agency would form groups known as Artificial Intelligence Governance Boards to coordinate AI strategies and ensure compliance with defined standards, emphasizing ethical and responsible AI usage.
General Summary
The AI LEAD Act is designed to bolster the United States government's responsible handling and implementation of AI technologies. Through the establishment of a centralized council and the designation of dedicated officers within each federal agency, the bill aims to coordinate AI initiatives across the federal government effectively. Furthermore, the legislation highlights the importance of aligning AI practices with democratic values, including privacy, transparency, and non-discrimination.
Summary of Significant Issues
One concern with the bill is the potential overlap and redundancy in roles and responsibilities. The introduction of new positions such as CAIOs and AI-specific boards within each agency could lead to confusion and inefficiencies if not properly coordinated with existing structures. Additionally, while the bill proposes extensive duties, it lacks specificity regarding the resources and funding needed for implementation, raising concerns about potential underfunding and ineffective execution.
The definitions of key terms in the bill rely on references to external legislation, which could result in ambiguity and require readers to perform additional research for clarity. Moreover, the broad authority granted to the Council to form committees and groups could lead to increased spending without clear oversight mechanisms.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
For the general public, the bill's implementation could result in improved government services through the responsible deployment of AI, ensuring that technological advancements do not compromise individual rights and privacy. Ensuring transparency and accountability may bolster public trust in government AI initiatives.
However, these ambitious goals could also present challenges. The establishment of multiple layers of oversight and strategy could slow down technological deployment, potentially delaying benefits to the public until processes are adequately streamlined.
Specific stakeholders such as federal agencies might face significant adjustments to integrate new roles and boards efficiently. Agencies may have to navigate internal challenges to align the new roles of CAIOs with existing structures to prevent redundancies. Similarly, the requirement for senior executives for CAIO positions may present staffing challenges and escalate administrative costs.
Moreover, industries involved in AI development could be positively impacted, as the bill proposes engaging with private sectors in ensuring AI systems are responsibly developed and implemented. However, clear guidelines would be crucial to prevent favoritism or conflicts of interest in these partnerships.
Overall, while the AI LEAD Act presents a structured approach to enhancing AI governance within federal agencies, careful attention must be given to addressing potential inefficiencies and ensuring that the roles and responsibilities created by the bill are effectively coordinated and resourced.
Issues
The potential for overlapping responsibilities and inefficiencies within agencies due to the establishment of new roles such as the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers and the lack of coordination between existing roles and newly created roles, leading to increased administrative burden and costs. This issue is particularly evident in Sections 3 and 4.
The broad authority given to the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers Council to establish standing committees and working groups without clear oversight or criteria, which could result in unnecessary expansion and increased costs as noted in Section 3.
The lack of specificity regarding the resources, budget, and financial implications related to the implementation of the Council, Chief AI Officers, and Governance Boards, which may lead to underfunding or inefficiency. This issue is reflected in Section 3 and Section 4.
The definitions of key terms are tied to references outside the document, such as the term 'artificial intelligence' being defined by a past Act, which could lead to ambiguous interpretations and the need for additional research by readers, described in Section 2.
The establishment of Artificial Intelligence Governance Boards in each agency, potentially leading to redundancy and increased administrative costs without clear budgetary constraints, as outlined in Section 5.
The unclear processes for ensuring compliance and accountability of the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers and the Council's actions, which could lead to varied and potentially inconsistent application of AI-related strategies and policies across different agencies as seen in Section 3 and Section 4.
The complex language and dense structure of the document which might impede understanding among stakeholders and hinder clear communication of responsibilities and expectations, particularly highlighted in Sections 3 and 4.
The requirement for a senior executive level for Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers, which could limit the pool of eligible candidates and result in increased costs, particularly evident in Section 4.
The requirement for agencies to establish their own AI strategies may lead to duplication of efforts and inconsistent application across agencies, as seen in Section 5.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides the short title for the Act, which is called the “AI Leadership To Enable Accountable Deployment Act,” also abbreviated as the “AI LEAD Act.”
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides definitions for terms used in the Act, specifying that "agency" follows the definition in U.S. Code, "artificial intelligence" is as defined by a previous Defense Authorization Act, and includes roles like the "Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer" and groups like the "Council" and "relevant congressional committees."
3. Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers Council Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers Council within 90 days to coordinate federal AI activities, share best practices, and manage risks. The Council, chaired by the Director, includes AI officers from various agencies and may form committees and working groups to address its goals.
4. Agency artificial intelligence officers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Each government agency must appoint a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer to oversee responsible AI use, aligning it with democratic values like privacy and transparency. This officer will help create AI policies, manage risks, and ensure compliance with federal standards, while also reporting to Congress about their activities.
5. Agency coordination on artificial intelligence Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section requires federal agencies to set up Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Boards within 120 days to manage AI use, led by their Chief AI Officers. Each agency must create a strategy for using AI responsibly, including ensuring public trust, safety, and legal compliance while enhancing their missions, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will report on the effectiveness of these boards after two years.
6. Sunset Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
After 10 years from the date this law is passed, it will automatically end and no longer be in effect.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill gives it a short title. It allows the bill to be called the “AI Leadership To Enable Accountable Deployment Act” or simply the “AI LEAD Act.”
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section provides definitions for terms used in the Act, including "agency," "artificial intelligence," and "Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer." It also defines "Council" as the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers Council, "Director" as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and "relevant congressional committees" as specific committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
3. Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers Council Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers Council is a group established by the Director within 90 days of enacting this law to oversee and promote responsible AI use in the Federal Government. Their duties include advising on AI practices, monitoring AI's impacts, managing risks, and ensuring AI systems are fair, private, and secure. The Director chairs the Council, supported by a cochair voted by members, with the Council having the authority to form committees and working groups to tackle specific issues.
4. Agency artificial intelligence officers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines the roles and responsibilities of Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers in government agencies. Each agency must appoint a qualified officer to ensure that artificial intelligence is used responsibly, in line with democratic values, and to oversee AI initiatives, risk management, and compliance with laws and regulations.
5. Agency coordination on artificial intelligence Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the creation of an Artificial Intelligence Coordination Board in each federal agency to address AI-related issues and publish relevant principles. It also requires agencies to develop a strategy for using AI responsibly, covering topics like ethics, oversight, public trust, privacy, collaboration, and safety in order to better serve the public.
6. GAO reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The GAO is required to report to Congress within two years on various aspects of artificial intelligence in federal government agencies. This includes studying the effectiveness of AI Coordination Boards and Chief AI Officers, assessing the impact of AI on jobs, and examining how agencies handle privacy and bias with AI. Additionally, there will be a separate report on how biased datasets affect federal AI use.
7. Post-enactment guidance from the Director Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that within five years of the law being passed, the Director must study developments in technology and artificial intelligence governance. The Director must then issue guidelines to government agencies to update leadership roles and structures related to AI, including an action plan and timeline for putting these updates in place.
8. Sunset Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Act will automatically end and no longer be valid 90 days after a directive mentioned in section 7 is issued.